4,350 representatives?!? Yuck. Sounds like a ploy with horrible consequences dreamed up by urbanites who want to dilute the electoral college into a popular vote contest.

Teslag said:

---

MaroonBloodedTexan said:

---

There's a bunch of states that have independent commissions for redistricting, or other ways to prevent gerrymandering. Idaho, Ohio, Arizona, etc. The reason Texas isn't one of them is because we've been under one party rule for 30 years. And the reason we've been under one party rule for 30 years? You guessed it... Gerrymandering.

---

Texas hasn't elected a single democrat to statewide office for those 30 years. So please tell me how statewide races are "gerrymandered".

---

I seem to remember a Democratic governor named Ann Richards (1991-1995).

Because, from a percentage standpoint, it doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people in the state? You think Republican Californian's are happy about what is happening over there to them? They are getting screwed too.

doubledog said:

---

Teslag said:

---

MaroonBloodedTexan said:

---

There's a bunch of states that have independent commissions for redistricting, or other ways to prevent gerrymandering. Idaho, Ohio, Arizona, etc. The reason Texas isn't one of them is because we've been under one party rule for 30 years. And the reason we've been under one party rule for 30 years? You guessed it... Gerrymandering.

---

Texas hasn't elected a single democrat to statewide office for those 30 years. So please tell me how statewide races are "gerrymandered".

---

I seem to remember a Democratic governor named Ann Richards (1991-1995).

---

She left office in January of 1995, over 30 years ago.

Yeah, she's been burning in hell for almost 20 years now.

Along with her scissor buddy Molly Ivins

BMX Bandit said:

---

both.


gerrymandering is as American as apple pie.

---

Doing it randomly without any new census data is the main issue. Yes gerrymandering is part of the process but only Texas has done this on its own out of cycle as far as I can tell.

I think everyone probably would agree that gerrymandering as a practice intentionally limits the voice of the citizens it's supposed to support.

It's all dumb though and a part of why politics in America suck so bad. I don't believe any of them give a rats ass what the voting public care about. They just align on hot button topic to fire us all up.

doubledog said:

---

I am confused, Which of these district maps are "gerry mandered"?

It appears, at least to me, that the old map is. But let's not stop the Democrats from whining about it.

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/politics/us-redistricting/texas-redistricting-map/

---

What you are calling the "old map" is the pre-2020 census map. The "new map" is the one that will be redrawn (if the Democrats ever come back to Austin).

Serotonin said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

both.


gerrymandering is as American as apple pie.

---

Yep.

In 1972 Nixon/Republicans won Texas by a 2:1 margin. Yet Dems held 20 out of the 24 congressional seats.

In Illinois in 2024 the Presidential race was 55-45 to Dems yet they hold a 13-4 lead in congressional seats.

When your opponent plays hardball you play hardball.

---

I think you need to retake Texas history. There was a HUGE difference in '72 between McGovern and the congressional democrats in Texas. That race had NOTHING to do with gerrymandering.

Dan Carlin said:

---

Changing the way we elect house district representation would require a constitutional amendment as it is specified by Article 1, Section 2.

An interesting alternative I've read about is actually to change the number of house representatives themselves, which could be done simply by the Congress. At the turn of the 18th century there were 34k citizens per house district on average and today that number is 760k. This wouldn't necessarily solve gerrymandering but if we had 5-10x the number of elected representatives then it's possible that the power currently concentrated in the extremes of each party would be diluted. A district currently represented by 1 member of the church of Trump could end up with 2 MAGAs and 3 non-MAGA Republicans.

---

You're looking for something like the Wyoming Rule, which was the first amendment proposed by the Framers (originally named Article the First), but it was voted down. It wasn't called the Wyoming Rule back then, but the principle is the same. The number of representatives is based on the population of the least populated state. That would get you to about 570 seats. A one per 30,000 people would yield roughly 11,350 seats. It's an interesting concept, for sure.

The biggest problem with gerrymandering is that instead of the people choosing their house reps, the house reps choose their people. That's bass ackwards.

Teslag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Teslag said:

---

MaroonBloodedTexan said:

---

There's a bunch of states that have independent commissions for redistricting, or other ways to prevent gerrymandering. Idaho, Ohio, Arizona, etc. The reason Texas isn't one of them is because we've been under one party rule for 30 years. And the reason we've been under one party rule for 30 years? You guessed it... Gerrymandering.

---

Texas hasn't elected a single democrat to statewide office for those 30 years. So please tell me how statewide races are "gerrymandered".

---

I seem to remember a Democratic governor named Ann Richards (1991-1995).

---

She left office in January of 1995, over 30 years ago.

---

My bad my age is showing.

t - cam said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

both.


gerrymandering is as American as apple pie.

---

Doing it randomly without any new census data is the main issue. Yes gerrymandering is part of the process but only Texas has done this on its own out of cycle as far as I can tell.

I think everyone probably would agree that gerrymandering as a practice intentionally limits the voice of the citizens it's supposed to support.

It's all dumb though and a part of why politics in America suck so bad. I don't believe any of them give a rats ass what the voting public care about. They just align on hot button topic to fire us all up.

---

There have been other states that redrew more than once following adoption of an initial plan. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, and North Carolina drew new maps for 2024.

Quote:

---

The biggest problem with gerrymandering is that instead of the people choosing their house reps, the house reps choose their people. That's bass ackwards.

---

Nailed it.

HTownAg98 said:

---

A one per 30,000 people would yield roughly 11,350 seats. It's an interesting concept, for sure.

---

It would be like the National Assembly during the French Revolution.

I think this is the plan that was advanced by the committee:

Dan Carlin said:

---

Changing the way we elect house district representation would require a constitutional amendment as it is specified by Article 1, Section 2.

An interesting alternative I've read about is actually to change the number of house representatives themselves, which could be done simply by the Congress. At the turn of the 18th century there were 34k citizens per house district on average and today that number is 760k. This wouldn't necessarily solve gerrymandering but if we had 5-10x the number of elected representatives then it's possible that the power currently concentrated in the extremes of each party would be diluted. A district currently represented by 1 member of the church of Trump could end up with 2 MAGAs and 3 non-MAGA Republicans.

---

Yep, the Constitution allows one representative for every 30,000 people. That would allow the House to have more than 11,000 members today. Instead, the House has been fixed at 435 seats since 1913, with each member "representing" 460k people.

If you want to learn about the implications of this, see https://thirty-thousand.org/.

Serotonin said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

both.


gerrymandering is as American as apple pie.

---

Yep.

In 1972 Nixon/Republicans won Texas by a 2:1 margin. Yet Dems held 20 out of the 24 congressional seats.

In Illinois in 2024 the Presidential race was 55-45 to Dems yet they hold a 13-4 lead in congressional seats.

When your opponent plays hardball you play hardball.

---

4 years ago, Illinois did the same thing Texas is trying to do and cut a few R seats.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Gerrymandering is as old as the republic but that does not mean it is a sustainable path forward. Voting directly for parties like parliamentary systems do, instead of being segmented by house district, would be more representative. At this point though I would put greater odds on the end of the republic than for responsible actors in each party to reassert control.

---

Everyone hates gerrymandering, but nobody has a better alternative. As mentioned before: there are myriad interests beyond red v blue. And if you vote purely for the party you lose even the tenuous connection you have with your representative as well as any ability to primary an turd.

---

Except that pretty much every other country in the world that has legislative elections does have a better alternative. And if you're worried about party-list systems breaking your connection to a specific representative, that's an already-solved problem too:

• Open list systems allow a voter to vote for a specific candidate within their chosen party.
• Mixed-member proportional representation, as in Germany, combines district representatives with party-list representatives.
• Single transferable vote uses ranked ballots, and doesn't require parties to exist at all.
• Or, if you insist on single-member districts, those can be drawn by a non-partisan commission or by an algorithmic method (e.g., shortest splitline).

You're being willfully ignorant here.

And what about the rest of history when the democrats ran the state and gerrymandered?

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Gerrymandering is as old as the republic but that does not mean it is a sustainable path forward. Voting directly for parties like parliamentary systems do, instead of being segmented by house district, would be more representative. At this point though I would put greater odds on the end of the republic than for responsible actors in each party to reassert control.

---

Everyone hates gerrymandering, but nobody has a better alternative. As mentioned before: there are myriad interests beyond red v blue. And if you vote purely for the party you lose even the tenuous connection you have with your representative as well as any ability to primary an turd.

---

Except that pretty much every other country in the world that has legislative elections does have a better alternative. And if you're worried about party-list systems breaking your connection to a specific representative, that's an already-solved problem too:

[ul]
[li]Open list systems allow a voter to vote for a specific candidate within their chosen party.[/li]
[li]Mixed-member proportional representation, as in Germany, combines district representatives with party-list representatives.[/li]
[li]Single transferable vote uses ranked ballots, and doesn't require parties to exist at all.[/li]
[li]Or, if you insist on single-member districts, those can be drawn by a non-partisan commission or by an algorithmic method (e.g., shortest splitline).[/li]
[/ul]

You're being willfully ignorant here.

---

No, he is simply not caught up in your oikophoboc fantasy. Removing direct election of representatives is just reinforcing the deep state, where you can vote however you like, but things never change.

If Trump wants to increase Republican control in DC he should be pushing an Amendment to repeal the 17th. Currently the Reps control 28 state legislatures, the Dems control 18 and 4 are split. In a pre-17th world that means the Reps have about 60 Senators and the Dems have about 40. Now it's interesting to note that the first time I posted that the result was closer to 65 Republicans in the Senate which ultimately means the states are shifting blue some. Still that Senate split is a lot closer to reality for the legislative body that's supposed to represent the states.

This whole 'gerrymandering is wrong' lecture by Dems is like being chastised by some hollywood **** like DiCaprio or some Kardashian etc. about the importance of pre-marital chastity.

This is a real Democrat “district” in Texas. This is what a stolen house seat actually looks like. pic.twitter.com/th5n0JZrKf

— Jessica 🇺🇸 (@RealJessica05) August 4, 2025

twk said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Gerrymandering is as old as the republic but that does not mean it is a sustainable path forward. Voting directly for parties like parliamentary systems do, instead of being segmented by house district, would be more representative. At this point though I would put greater odds on the end of the republic than for responsible actors in each party to reassert control.

---

Everyone hates gerrymandering, but nobody has a better alternative. As mentioned before: there are myriad interests beyond red v blue. And if you vote purely for the party you lose even the tenuous connection you have with your representative as well as any ability to primary an turd.

---

Except that pretty much every other country in the world that has legislative elections does have a better alternative. And if you're worried about party-list systems breaking your connection to a specific representative, that's an already-solved problem too:

[ul]
[li]Open list systems allow a voter to vote for a specific candidate within their chosen party.[/li]
[li]Mixed-member proportional representation, as in Germany, combines district representatives with party-list representatives.[/li]
[li]Single transferable vote uses ranked ballots, and doesn't require parties to exist at all.[/li]
[li]Or, if you insist on single-member districts, those can be drawn by a non-partisan commission or by an algorithmic method (e.g., shortest splitline).[/li]
[/ul]

You're being willfully ignorant here.

---

No, he is simply not caught up in your oikophoboc fantasy. Removing direct election of representatives is just reinforcing the deep state, where you can vote however you like, but things never change.

---

This move was very deep state by the way. I realize everyone sees this through their own lens but this move is definitely being driven by more than the motives of the citizens being affected by it and the legislators being asked to pull the strings.

We need to gerrymander the ever living **** out of this state and so should every other red state.

It's what the dems do. Play their game. Play it harder.

Set the left back decades. The time is now.

nortex97 said:

---

This whole 'gerrymandering is wrong' lecture by Dems is like being chastised by some hollywood **** like DiCaprio or some Kardashian etc. about the importance of pre-marital chastity.

This is a real Democrat “district” in Texas. This is what a stolen house seat actually looks like. pic.twitter.com/th5n0JZrKf

— Jessica 🇺🇸 (@RealJessica05) August 4, 2025

---

That district was established in 2010. Democrats haven't been in position to control the Redistricting in that time. I'd have to imagine any zoning in that time frame would have been supported by a republicans led house.

This was drawn by a republican house to isolate a lot of dems in one area. It's actually an example of stealing other seats.

I hope it worked in the Rs favor.

twk said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Gerrymandering is as old as the republic but that does not mean it is a sustainable path forward. Voting directly for parties like parliamentary systems do, instead of being segmented by house district, would be more representative. At this point though I would put greater odds on the end of the republic than for responsible actors in each party to reassert control.

---

Everyone hates gerrymandering, but nobody has a better alternative. As mentioned before: there are myriad interests beyond red v blue. And if you vote purely for the party you lose even the tenuous connection you have with your representative as well as any ability to primary an turd.

---

Except that pretty much every other country in the world that has legislative elections does have a better alternative. And if you're worried about party-list systems breaking your connection to a specific representative, that's an already-solved problem too:

• Open list systems allow a voter to vote for a specific candidate within their chosen party.
• Mixed-member proportional representation, as in Germany, combines district representatives with party-list representatives.
• Single transferable vote uses ranked ballots, and doesn't require parties to exist at all.
• Or, if you insist on single-member districts, those can be drawn by a non-partisan commission or by an algorithmic method (e.g., shortest splitline).

You're being willfully ignorant here.

---

No, he is simply not caught up in your oikophoboc fantasy. Removing direct election of representatives is just reinforcing the deep state, where you can vote however you like, but things never change.

---

It's not oikophobic (yes, I admit I had to look up the definition) to point out when your country does a dumb thing.

Are you one of those people who thinks that car-dependent suburbia is wonderful, and that it's "communist" to want restaurants to pay their waiters like other employees instead of demanding tips?

YouBet said:

---

I hope it worked in the Rs favor.

---

It most certainly did. Just pointing out a post that clearly isn't sure how this thing works.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Changing the way we elect house district representation would require a constitutional amendment as it is specified by Article 1, Section 2.

An interesting alternative I've read about is actually to change the number of house representatives themselves, which could be done simply by the Congress. At the turn of the 18th century there were 34k citizens per house district on average and today that number is 760k. This wouldn't necessarily solve gerrymandering but if we had 5-10x the number of elected representatives then it's possible that the power currently concentrated in the extremes of each party would be diluted. A district currently represented by 1 member of the church of Trump could end up with 2 MAGAs and 3 non-MAGA Republicans.

---

You're looking for something like the Wyoming Rule, which was the first amendment proposed by the Framers (originally named Article the First), but it was voted down. It wasn't called the Wyoming Rule back then, but the principle is the same. The number of representatives is based on the population of the least populated state. That would get you to about 570 seats. A one per 30,000 people would yield roughly 11,350 seats. It's an interesting concept, for sure.

The biggest problem with gerrymandering is that instead of the people choosing their house reps, the house reps choose their people. That's bass ackwards.

---

True, it's a terrible system.

But as long as it's the system we have, I want my side to be better at gerrymandering.

t - cam said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

This whole 'gerrymandering is wrong' lecture by Dems is like being chastised by some hollywood **** like DiCaprio or some Kardashian etc. about the importance of pre-marital chastity.

This is a real Democrat “district” in Texas. This is what a stolen house seat actually looks like. pic.twitter.com/th5n0JZrKf

— Jessica 🇺🇸 (@RealJessica05) August 4, 2025

---

That district was established in 2010. Democrats haven't been in position to control the Redistricting in that time. I'd have to imagine any zoning in that time frame would have been supported by a republicans led house.

This was drawn by a republican house to isolate a lot of dems in one area. It's actually an example of stealing other seats.

---

Time to fix it, if it was up to me they would get zero seats

Quote:

---

That district was established in 2010. Democrats haven't been in position to control the Redistricting in that time. I'd have to imagine any zoning in that time frame would have been supported by a republicans led house.

This was drawn by a republican house to isolate a lot of dems in one area. It's actually an example of stealing other seats.

---

Democrats have functionally controlled the Texas statehouse for decades, thanks to 'partnerships' a la Drunk Dade/Burrows. Notice that representative hasn't complained it is a gerrymandered district. The examples in Democrat-run states of gerrymandering leading to a tremendous under-representation in the US House of Republican voters are multitudinous, a plethora even, as we are all aware.

Outrage as to Texas finally moving to a more "California/NY/Illinois model" of political gerrymandering is as stated ridiculous coming from the leftists, as it is clear they have no issue with it when it's to their advantage. That's the point, and very likely everyone reading this thread is, in truth, in agreement.

Texas should figure out a way to have zero Dem-majority districts. That would be the most just response to CA/NY/IL and their hysteric mouthpieces. That's not racial, it would be pro-sane representation.

I hate re-districting.

I hate liberals more.

Democrats like Pritzker and Hochul lecturing Texans is just, again, beyond the pale.

ILLINOIS GERRYMANDERING: The 4th congressional district here was carefully crafted to ensure a Democrat would win. The hypocrisy of Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker to comment on Texas doing the same is insane. Yet another reason Pritzker spends more time messing things up than… pic.twitter.com/szD9IY6NW8

— Mark Weyermuller (@publicpolicyman) August 4, 2025

No, records show Governor Hochul has not complained about Democratic gerrymandering. She signed NY's 2022 Democratic-favoring maps, later ruled unconstitutional, and recently considered mid-decade redistricting for partisan gain.

— Grok (@grok) July 30, 2025

Democrats have nothing but disdain for dissent from the Party by disloyal subjects.
ETA another example:

This is how Democrats drew my Congressional district in Maryland a few years ago so they could maximize their representation in Congress.

Spare me the fake outrage. They're just pissed about Texas because Republicans have finally started playing the Democrats' game. pic.twitter.com/CJHPz4Twc2

— L A R R Y (@LarryOConnor) August 5, 2025

Facts are meaningless to dems.